Last week's fuss over Ed Miliband's home made clear that the kitchen is now the principal representational space of the house – a room that expresses the taste, aspirations and status of a family, but is actually less used for cooking and eating than ever before, says Edwin Heathcote

In Moscow's Sokolniki Park in 1959, Nikita Khrushchev and Richard Nixon had an argument in a mocked-up American kitchen, part of an exhibit set up to display US consumer goods to curious Muscovites. Nixon claimed this glamorous kitchen, full of labour-saving devices and streamlined white goods, was attainable by every American household. Khrushchev declared that, within a few years, every Russian household would have a kitchen at least as good. Broadcast on TV at the height of Cold War tensions, the exchange became known as the "Kitchen Debate".

Recently, Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour party, was interviewed with his wife, Justine, in the small kitchen of his north London home. Sarah Vine, wife of Conservative politician Michael Gove, wrote a column in the Daily Mail – a right-wing tabloid – pretending to pity the Milibands for their soulless kitchen, suggesting that its barrenness indicated some kind of existential bleakness in Miliband's soul. Where's the warmth? The family hearth? Vine didn't mention that the kitchen at her own home was funded by taxpayers until the couple were forced to pay the money back once an expenses scandal erupted, dominating British politics throughout 2009.

When David Cameron moved into Downing Street, he caused a kerfuffle by building a new £30,000 kitchen, which, shortly afterwards, became the homely background for a photo op between his wife Samantha and Michelle Obama. Politicians like to be seen in kitchens because it humanises them. The mug of coffee, the kids' fridge magnets, a bit of veg chopping – it presents the cosy domesticity of someone not afraid to do their stuff in the home, to spend time with their family.

The real damage to Miliband came not from the sparseness of the kitchen but from the revelation that this was their "second kitchen" – a room for "tea and quick snacks", in the words of a friend. Two kitchens? Outrageous. It showed how out of touch he was. Would there have been the same furore if the Milibands had been exposed as having, say, three bathrooms? Or even two reception rooms? Yet many people do – not only the very wealthy.

The kitchen, it seems, has a particular place in political iconography. Margaret Thatcher was often photographed in the kitchen at her constituency home, in her Downing Street flat, even at the Ideal Home show. It burnished her image as a prudent housewife. These kitchens were invariably simple and small. No Agas. At the recent phone-hacking trials, we heard about "kitchen suppers" at the Camerons' Cotswolds home with News International chums and Jeremy Clarkson. The presumption was that these were less formal than what we might call "dining room dinners". No candelabras. Fewer staff on hand to do the cooking.

Words

Edwin Heathcote

Above: Nikita Khrushchev and Richard Nixon debate washing machines at the 1959 American National Exhibition in Moscow

Michelle Obama and Samantha Cameron in the £30,000 kitchen at 10 Downing Street in May 2011

The Camerons' Downing Street abode is kitted out in urban everyman chic: a blend of Ikea and stainless steel – tough and functional but humanised by touches of Italian design flair. Today's media revels in identifying brands, in dissecting the kitchen by cost and label, so it needs to be chosen with just the right mix – no item is bought without consideration of its PR appeal. This is kitchen as political shop window.

A little different is Frank Underwood's White House kitchen in US political drama House of Cards. The appliances here, too, are stainless steel but there's less light. It is a dark, cold place in shades of grey. The lighting is low, the stools in industrial galvanised steel, but the hint of panels on the kitchen cabinets suggests the historic DC setting. No cooking goes on here. Frank Underwood makes himself a late-night peanut butter and jelly sandwich or partakes of frosty breakfasts over the morning papers. There are no children, no fridge magnets – the design and palette suggest the cold emptiness at the heart of the couple's ruthless ascent to power.

What has changed over the last generation is that the kitchen has become the principal representational space of the house. It is the room that most fully expresses the taste, aspirations, social milieu and status of a family. It can be discreetly filled with expensive things – catering-standard kitchen equipment, US-style mega-fridges, Dualit toasters, Italian coffee machines, Le Creuset pots, David Mellor flatware, a Castiglioni lamp.

These are code for metropolitan wealth and taste. There is no room here for inherited furniture – remember the late Alan Clark's description of Tory colleague Michael Heseltine as the kind of person "who bought his own furniture"? Everything here is new. Nothing is quirky, nothing accidental, nothing conspicuously unfashionable. This is a space that has been styled to death but yet also, paradoxically, has been styled to look spontaneous.

This phenomenon is not limited to politicians. The luxury apartments that have become the sole product of London and New York developers, for example, come, like the Milibands' home, with two kitchens. One for show – a huge space that's apparently the social hub of a home, but nobody ever really lives in, and a servants' kitchen, which is where the food preparation is actually carried out, by staff.

The irony is that, as the kitchen increasingly becomes the symbol of domestic rootedness, fewer people ever use it for cooking or eating. It has become a memory of a space, a subconscious leftover. So when politicians are shown in their kitchens, instead of reinforcing authenticity, it only adds to the sham.

The Milibands' denuded, minimal kitchen for snacks and hot drinks is an honestly functional space. There has been no attention paid to the social meaning of its fittings, which are white and basic – crap, non-retro, non-designer plastic with a touch of stainless steel or, to one side, an ugly, leftover stool. Vine comments that it has "Communist-style egalitarian lino". Egalitarian lino! This, my friends, is what we have in store if we vote Labour, according to the Daily Mail: cheap kitchens and communist floor coverings.

As we hurtle towards the UK general election, all the main political parties are firing shots at each other, personalities are thrown into the spotlight and the proverbial mud is slung – attacks on individuals involving cheap point-scoring have become the norm in place of solid policies. Perhaps not coincidentally, there has never been a time when the general public has been so disillusioned with politics.

The rise of (or media hype surrounding) right-wing parties such as UKIP has created caricature politicians akin to those in a sketch show, but these people are real and, worryingly, might one day be in charge. Media scrutiny has focused on issues such as expenses – excesses and loopholes are exposed and the public pores over tabloid sensations. All of this takes the focus away from those MPs who strive hard for their constituents and creates distrust around their day-to-day work.

But do we really know what this day-to-day work is? Do we know who our MPs are? Are they acting in our best interests? We set out to bring a level of transparency to politicians' working lives using data that already exists, yet which can be hard to decipher in its current form. Open data is much championed by the current government, but delivery can be tailored to particular agendas.

The file system allows results to be filtered across a number of categories

Our idea is simple: show an equal, fair and balanced record of each MP's year, but in an open, accessible and neutral way. We call this "The Record". Each year, a personal annual report would be published using available data from sources such as theyworkforyou.com. This report would give a comprehensive insight into the people you vote for.

The platform has been designed to feel official yet accessible in the way it delivers infographics, using large type and a file system for navigation. You can access personalised information to build up an image of your MP, from comments on national and local issues, to official information gathered from parliament, including those points raised and voted on. Everything is searchable, shareable and accessible.

With this level of transparency on a digital platform, a higher level of engagement with, debate around and understanding of MPs' roles could be achieved.

Architects may not employ the migrant workers building their grand designs in the Gulf states, but their names lend credibility to those that do. With appalling conditions still rife in the region, human-rights groups are demanding that practices stand up to their paymasters

In contrast, later in the year Frank Gehry revealed that his practice had been working closely with authorities to improve labour conditions on his Guggenheim Abu Dhabi project since a 2009 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report exposed exploitation of workers on the $27 billion Saadiyat Island development, of which the museum is part. "Gehry Partners has been engaged in a substantial and on-going dialogue over many years that has involved government, the construction industry, architects, project, sponsors and NGOs," said the firm, naming as priorities health and safety, access for workers to their passports, contractor accountability, independent site monitoring and the abolition or reimbursement by employers of the steep recruitment fees paid by many workers.

"It's not a legal responsibility, but it's a moral responsibility," Gehry's lawyer Scott Horton told Architectural Record in September. Gehry is evidently keen to avoid the human-rights abuses connected with other projects in the Gulf. Perhaps he is also wary of the reputational damage that any abuses on the Guggenheim site – or at least public revelations about them – may cause his firm. But whether you believe the motive for his stance is labour emancipation or avoiding embarrassment, he remains one of the few architects to publicly address the issue of working and living conditions on their own project in the region.

Words

Debika Ray

Above: Migrant construction workers in Dubai line up to board a bus back to their labour camp, over two hours away

Starchitects have acted with breathtaking contempt for the lives and wellbeing of the migrant workers building their spectacular culture shops

Bangladeshi workers share a room in an apartment in Abu Dhabi

Rights groups have consistently reported the widespread exploitation in the Gulf region of migrant workers, who travel to countries such as the UAE and Qatar to work, and end up labouring in slave-like conditions, with punishing hours, squalid, overcrowded living quarters miles from site and few employment rights. Saadiyat Island itself has faced further criticism of its working conditions in recent years. Yet architects continue to design for the regimes under which these abuses occur.

"Starchitects have acted with breathtaking contempt for the lives and wellbeing of the migrant workers building their spectacular culture shops, from which they profit so handsomely," says writer Guy Mannes-Abbott, who campaigns for Gulf Labor, a group working to expose exploitation on Saadiyat Island.

The Khalifa Stadium in Doha undergoes renovation in preparation for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar

Yet, in some respects, Hadid is right. Architects are not responsible for hiring construction workers, so are not in a position to dictate employment conditions. You could also argue that they cannot dismantle the complex system that incorporates workers into the Gulf's construction sector.

The treatment of the predominantly South Asian migrants who build these city-states is a result of a combination of local factors, such as the social and racial hierarchies of the Gulf states, and global ones, including the fragmentation of the construction supply chain in recent decades, removing accountability for labour from the top levels of management, and a reliance on vulnerable agency workers to cut costs. Indeed, worker exploitation is not unique to this region, as recent wrangles over "gangmaster" licensing in the UK have demonstrated.

But architects who take on work in the Gulf do so knowing its record on human rights, and that construction there is linked to the exploitation of workers – particularly through the ban on collective bargaining and the kafala system of sponsorship, under which migrant labourers are tied to a single employer.

Moreover, the prominent role of famous architects in developing the Gulf means it is disingenuous to claim powerlessness. "High-profile individuals are brought on board to lend credibility to projects, which affords them great power to set out the conditions of their involvement," says Nick McGeehan, author of a third HRW report about Saadiyat Island published last month. "They have far greater influence than they've exerted to date."

Workers in Dubai wait for a bus after a 12-hour shift

This is particularly true of Abu Dhabi. When completed in 2020, the government-funded Saadiyat Island will contain an unprecedented number of schemes by architectural superstars, including Gehry's Guggenheim, Hadid's Performing Arts Centre, Norman Foster's Zayed National Museum, Jean Nouvel's Louvre, Tadao Ando's Maritime Museum and Rafael Viñoly's outpost for New York University.

"Abu Dhabi wants to buy prestige, and why not?" says Mannes-Abbott. "If architects say no, not under the conditions of forced labour, it cannot." Yet few are willing to speak out. While Foster told Icon that his practice was following the lead of its client to "promote the highest standards of welfare for the workforce", Hadid, Nouvel and Viñoly did not respond to requests to comment. Even Gehry and his lawyer would not go on the record for this article. This reticence suggests that architects are focused more on protecting their reputations than on pushing for change, and it calls into question how much pressure they are really exerting behind the scenes.

Although it is believed that Gehry has been discussing workers' rights since the start of his involvement in the project, it is not clear whether he has put explicit conditions on the client in exchange for his involvement. Could such a conciliatory yet cautious approach be, as Mannes-Abbott describes it, "face-saving PR"?

Inside Saadiyat Accommodation Village in Abu Dhabi

Saadiyat Island is central to the emirate's mission to establish its image as a globalised, sophisticated, tourist-friendly metropolis. This has involved attempts to distance itself from the criticism other Gulf projects have faced. In 2009, responding to concerns of rights groups, the developers and institutions associated with Saadiyat Island made public promises to improve conditions, introducing codes of conduct and establishing a system of independent monitoring of working and living conditions.

In addition, TDIC – the developer of the Guggenheim and the Louvre – built a dedicated facility to provide an "internationally recognised world-class standard of living for workers". Saadiyat Accommodation Village (SAV) – a name designed to shake off the negative connotations of the word "camp" – features a well-manicured cricket oval, a gym, a games room and a multi-lingual library.

But subsequent reports by HRW in 2012 and this year, and another by Gulf Labor last year, both reported continuing problems on the island. "Every time an independent body goes to Saadiyat, we find problems," McGeehan says. Last year, Gulf Labor said that wages on the island were no better than on other comparable projects and encountered continuing reports of passports being withheld, recruitment fees not being repaid and insufficient grievance mechanisms.

TDIC and New York University remain adamant that progress has been made in meeting their codes, with recruitment fees reimbursed, passports held only with permission, timely payments, better housing and an enhanced grievance system. But McGeehan is satisfied that, despite improvements, abuse continues, mainly because sanctions on contractors are not strong enough. His most recent report documents similar problems, as well as instances of worker unrest. "A few workers appear to have instigated strike action, then a large number were arbitrarily sent home without due process," he says.

Realities on the ground reveal the structural underpinnings of this worker exploitation. Despite improvements in housing quality, migrant workers remain on the peripheries of society. According to Gulf Labor's 2014 report, SAV is located 2km beyond a checkpoint that casual visitors cannot cross. The facility is blocked off from the city by the building site, and linked to a main road only by hourly shuttle buses from the checkpoint. In the few photos that exist, the "village" resembles barracks.

And the reality has not always lived up to promises. Although the SAV was designed to accommodate 20,000 and TDIC says that 96 per cent of workers are now housed there, Gulf Labor reported that on its last visit there were a mere 6,000 occupants because some contractors were preferring to avoid the facility's higher than average rents, housing some workers elsewhere. McGeehan also found workers who were living on alternative and inadequate sites.

It's not easy to get the full picture. McGeehan says he has been banned by the UAE authorities from returning to the country. It is possible that such moves to control information, and the greater interest over the past year in visibly improving conditions on Saadiyat Island through codes of conduct and independent monitoring, are a response to rising pressure by the International Labour Organisation to allow a large-scale investigation of working practices in Abu Dhabi. Its report on Qatar elicited promises from the state to overhaul kafala and increase enforcement of existing laws.

And what of the state's role in Abu Dhabi? Gehry is understood to be focusing on creating a contractual basis for enforcement of codes and laws. As most parties agree that the problem lies with lack of enforcement rather than legislation, this may seem to make sense. Yet voluntary codes and contractual mechanisms often have limited impact beyond individual projects. "Codes of conduct are a stepping stone to state regulation," McGeehan says. "Sadly, we're yet to see anyone really playing hardball with the Gulf states and saying that, if you want me involved, I need assurance that things will change, not just on my project but elsewhere."

Designers of mega-projects in Abu Dhabi should use their influence to push for better conditions for migrant workers, Human Rights Watch says to Icon as it reveals continuing exploitation on luxury Saadiyat Island development

In a report released today, the NGO reported that, despite improvements in conditions since it first reported conditions of forced labour on the site five years ago, workers on the $27 billion project continue to experience abuse, including employers withholding wages and benefits, failing to reimburse recruitment fees, confiscating passports and providing substandard housing.

"Every time an independent body – be it a newspaper or an NGO – goes to Saadiyat, we keep finding the same problems that we found in 2009," the report's author Nicholas McGeehan – who was last year banned from returning to the United Arab Emirates – told Icon before its release.

The report also claims contractors on the site informed UAE authorities about a workers' strike, leading to the arbitrary deportation of several hundred workers. "A few workers appear to have instigated strike action, then a large number were arbitrarily swept up and sent home without any due process," said McGeehan. "They were deported in a manner that seemed to be done to sent a message – to ensure no future disturbances arise."

Among the projects under construction on Saadiyat Island are Gehry's Guggenheim Museum, Nouvel's Louvre Abu Dhabi and Viñoly's New York University outpost. Hadid's Performing Art Centre, Tadao Ando's Maritime Museum and Foster's Zayed National Museum, to which the British Museum is cultural advisor, will join them by the time the development opens in 2020.

The latest report follows heated debate in the past year over architects' role in improving working conditions in the Gulf – a region that has become synonymous with architectural ambition and labour abuse. At the end of last month, Hadid settled a lawsuit against the New York Review of Books and critic Martin Filler related to defamatory comments made about her attitude to migrant workers on her Qatar World Cup stadium project. Hadid said she donated the settlement money to an undisclosed charity that "protects and champions labour rights". Last year, Gehry said he had hired a human rights lawyer to help him secure decent conditions on the Guggenheim scheme.

Although HRW accepts that architects are not responsible for workers, the international charity is calling for them to use their influence to push for change in the region. "They haven't gone far enough," McGeehan said to Icon. "They should use their spotlight, credibility and influence to drive reform. If this is going to be such a fertile ground for architects in years to come – and it's probably the world's most lucrative construction sector – then it would be great to see architects taking a strong stance to make sure we're not having these debates in years to come."

Though the developers did not grant access to the site, Human Rights Watch spoke to 116 present and former employees of contractors on Saadiyat Island in 2013 and 2014. HRW says its report mirrors the findings of independent monitors Mott Macdonald and PWC, as well as investigations by campaign group Gulf Labor and the Guardian newspaper. It accepts that the abuses involve a small percentage of workers, but point out that its findings indicate a gap in enforcement of the developers' codes of conduct, implemented since HRW's 2009 report.

TDIC, the developer of the Guggenheim and the Louvre, and New York University are adamant that progress had been made in meeting their codes of conduct and that they are taking a robust approach to tackle any remaining violations. They also point out that they are not responsible for all the contractors on the island and argue that the abuses reported by HRW are not representative of working conditions overall. They did not confirm or deny the reports of deportations.

Should architects be doing more to protect workers on their projects in the Gulf states? For a full analysis, pick up a copy of Icon's latest issue, Camps, which also includes a report from Syrian refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon and a discussion about designing a protest camp for effective resistance

Words

Debika Ray

Image: Sergey Ponomarev/New York Times / Redux / eyevine

If this is going to be such a fertile ground for architects in years to come – and it's probably the world's most lucrative construction sector – then it would be great to see architects taking a strong stance to make sure we're not having these debates in years to come

Our March issue, available from 1 February, asks what architects could do to alleviate the suffering of refugees in Syria and migrant workers in the Gulf states, as well as examining the role of design in the building of protest camps

Since the civil war began in 2011, 6.5 million Syrians have been internally displaced, and about 3 million refugees have fled the country, mostly to neighbouring Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. It's the biggest wave of migration since the Second World War. Germany has pledged to take 30,000 refugees; Britain only 90; Israel, though it shares a border with Syria, none.

Icon visits Za'atari, one of the sprawling refugee camps near the Jordanian border – it's the second largest in the world, a temporary city that was set up in only two weeks. Some 200,000 refugees have made a home here, customising the UN's caravans and tents to better purpose, and creating a resourceful community in the desert. Icon looks at the fragile infrastructure needed to maintain such a place, and at what it's like to live there.

The conflict has raged for four years and – as opposition leaders in Syria threaten to boycott planned peace talks in Moscow – there are little signs of resolution, a fact not lost on the refugees' host countries. Despite the creative, entrepreneurial spirit exhibited by camp dwellers, which belies the images that usually accompany financial appeals for help, there is a tremendous strain on resources, especially as a harsh winter descends on the Middle East.

Icon encourages its readers to help alleviate the worsening situation by joining us in donating to Unicef's Syria Appeal at unicef.org.uk/Donate-Syria. Every pound you give will be matched by the UK government.

Reviews Arts & Architecture revived, Victor Papanek's dreamspace, a macabre tale set in a furniture megastore and a retrospective of Team 10 East

Rethink Instruct's design for political transparencyIcon of the Month The blue tarpaulinFive Most Wanted Peter Griffith's favourite objectsCrimes Against Design The selfie stickSketchbook Grimshaw Architects